1133 réponses à ce sujet

[sanadawarrior]

slimgrin wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Dynasty warrior games now also include customization. In fact, depending on your definition of "tactica' combat" those Dynasty Warrior Empire games have skills, tactical combat, leveling up, customization AND stats.

Sounds like my kind of game.

I think story and character are important. But I like truly shaping the abilities and attributes of your character with in-depth customization. Few if any genres tackle this aspect like RPG's do.

They are very much action games, you dont realy get to shape the character, though you can chose some skills and such. 

[poisonoustea]

Perhaps I am wrong, but culd you point out 10 games which have the things in bold and are NOT popularly called RPGs?

Seriously, would you call Diablo an RPG?

[sanadawarrior]

captain.subtle wrote...

Then for Me (subjective opinion threat alert!) its an RPG.

Please go watch some gameplay footage of a warriors game in action before you make such claims. It's basicaly fighting your way through historical battles while killing dozens with every swing of your weapon.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 13 août 2010 - 03:20 .

[Batman90]

captain.subtle wrote...
Perhaps I am wrong, but culd you point out 10 games which have the things in bold and are NOT popularly called RPGs?

Bioshock (The series), Ratchet and Clank (The series), The Legend of Zelda (The series), Castlevania (Post-SOTN; the games are action-platformers and semi-action RPGs, but note the difference in genre between an action-RPG and a "true" RPG), God of War (The series), Starcraft II (Technically, you purchase "upgrades" instead of stats, but either way, in the end, all you're doing is raising numbers to make your units more effective, so it's the same thing), Borderlands (As with Castlevania, you will be searching far and wide for someone who actually considers the game an "RPG," and not a shooter with RPG elements or action-RPG or other hybrid genres), The Sims (The series), Spore, Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas, Batman: Arkham Asylum.

Really, the only thing that makes a role-playing game a role-playing game is, well, the role-playing (Which should be obvious; it's in the name of the genre, after all).

Modifié par Batman90, 13 août 2010 - 03:21 .

[captain.subtle]

Somehow that sounds correct to me.

Modifié par captain.subtle, 13 août 2010 - 03:20 .

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...
Sounds like my kind of game.

I think story and character are important. But I like truly shaping the abilities and attributes of your character with in-depth customization. Few if any genres tackle this aspect like RPG's do.

Let me try a feature neutral discussion of the most recent Empires game I played.

In it, you can design a custom character: you have a choice of voice and personality (there are several spoken lines), job (ruler or follower, even "ronin" - i.e. unattached warrior); you can join and remove yourself from factions whenever you choose; you have the ability to form friendships and relationships with characters (oaths, marriage, if I recall), you pick a "type" for your character which influences statistics and stat growth, you have a wealth of weapons to pick from for many different styles, and you can command armies though the combat itself is action oriented.

Another game that fits this definitionis the Romance of the Three Kingdom entries that do not restrict you to a ruler role.

Take Romance of the Three Kingdoms IX. You could create custom characters (or pick historitcal characters), you had 4 major stats that determined your effectiveness, you could form relationships, join different kingdoms, even make some mild choices.

Koei has a take on a lot of these mechanics, but no one would describe them as RPGs.

Modifié par In Exile, 13 août 2010 - 03:22 .

[captain.subtle]

Limit :- Thus Romance of the three kingdom->RPG : Game -> better.

[In Exile]

sanadawarrior wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Then for Me (subjective opinion threat alert!) its an RPG.

Please go watch some gameplay footage of a warriors game in action before you make such claims. It's basicaly fighting your way through historical battles while killing dozens with every swing of your weapon.

Shh. It's fun to use the vagueness of words to point out just how these definitions fail to actually comprise what the people expect them to. Dynasty Warriors (and Empires) is not an RPG in the least. But it has those features (potentially more than a game like ME) so it's fun to watch some doublethink in action.

[captain.subtle]

I have never claimed that action gaming negates RPGness. I am an ardent fan of Deus Ex and Mount and Blade after all

@batmanuel:

umm.. are you simply an AI programmed to negate whatever anyone says? Including something that agrees with you previously?

Modifié par captain.subtle, 13 août 2010 - 03:29 .

[poisonoustea]

People here seem to bash this game a lot, but it has its roots in old school rpg mechanics.

I don't "bash" Diablo... I played the first two episodes online for four happy years and I still love 'em.
But Diablo is a hack & slash game and has no RPG elements at all. And no, stats don't make it an RPG. Choices do.

We're still suffering from the influence of JRPGS imho.

 it has more customization than ME1 and ME2 combine

Oh come ON...

Modifié par poisonoustea, 13 août 2010 - 03:45 .

[sanadawarrior]

captain.subtle wrote...

I have never claimed that action gaming negates RPGness. I am an ardent fan of Deus Ex and Mount and Blade after all

@batmanuel:

umm.. are you simply an AI programmed to negate whatever anyone says? Including something that agrees with you previously?

Thats Samurai Warriors.

[captain.subtle]

Thanks. I had seen it already though.

[sanadawarrior]

captain.subtle wrote...

Thanks. I had seen it already though.

My bad, do you still think that it's an rpg though?

[captain.subtle]

Not apparently.. But if you insist it has all those features you mentioned then why not?

Modifié par captain.subtle, 13 août 2010 - 03:42 .

[poisonoustea]

Thats Samurai Warriors.

Definitely an RPG. Look at those health and mana bars.



/sarcasm

[sanadawarrior]

captain.subtle wrote...

Not apparently.. But if you insist it has all those features you mentioned then why not?

Because not even the makers of the series, Koei, claim such a thing?

[captain.subtle]

sanadawarrior wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Not apparently.. But if you insist it has all those features you mentioned then why not?

Because not even the makers of the series, Koei, claim such a thing?

Are you implying that a claim is necessary to be genre-indetified?

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...

I don't know why there has to be a contest between character customization and story. I value both. What is it people have against stats and inventory? It's not like DA2 is going to morph into a loot-grinding MMO overnight.

I don't think very many people are against it. I just happen to be indifferent to it, because I don't see that as the critical element to an RPG. So as long as it is well done, the inventory is just gravy for me.

[Seraphael]

SirOccam wrote...

They really are "pushing the rpg genre." Unfortunately for the "purists" who refuse to change with the times, that means all or nearly all of the changes are going to be for the worse.

I'll never understand people who think things are perfect the way they are used to them, and any change is necessarily bad.

Call them by their rightful name; RPG-fundamentalists. There's a vital difference between fundamentalists and purists. I consider myself an RPG-purist, meaning that I value realism that promote pure roleplaying over old-skool RPG fluff. As a purist, I liked the direction ME1 started and was thrilled how ME2 took it one step further. The fundamentalists, on the other hand, lamented the changes.

[captain.subtle]

Seraphael wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

They really are "pushing the rpg genre." Unfortunately for the "purists" who refuse to change with the times, that means all or nearly all of the changes are going to be for the worse.

I'll never understand people who think things are perfect the way they are used to them, and any change is necessarily bad.

Call them by their rightful name; RPG-fundamentalists. There's a vital difference between fundamentalists and purists. I consider myself an RPG-purist, meaning that I value realism that promote pure roleplaying over old-skool RPG fluff. As a purist, I liked the direction ME1 started and was thrilled how ME2 took it one step further. The fundamentalists, on the other hand, lamented the changes.

err... what?

[Merced256]

slimgrin wrote...

poisonoustea wrote...

Perhaps I am wrong, but culd you point out 10 games which have the things in bold and are NOT popularly called RPGs?

Seriously, would you call Diablo an RPG?

Diablo is an action rpg, and it has more customization than ME1 and ME2 combined. People here seem to bash this game a lot, but it has its roots in old school rpg mechanics. 

Indeed, and in diablo your skills actually mattered in so far that you couldn't beat the game without using them. Sadly ME2 can't say this because all the RPG elements it "incorporated" aside from a decent story were absolute garbage.

It was still a good game, but no RPG. :innocent:

Modifié par Merced256, 13 août 2010 - 06:43 .

[Haexpane]

I prefer



Pretenders vs. game players.



Pretenders want to pretend they are the character, thus only story and choices matter to them, gameplay is mostly a distraction and they hate things like inventory and loot.



Game players prefer a system they can get into, analyze, learn, and use. LIke min/maxing builds/gear/party ins and outs of combat, challenging boss fights etc..



Game players camp - we like a good story, and choices, and character development, but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.